Quote from: pryingeyes;549558In that case, that makes perfect sense - sorry for misinterpreting you!

I just feel that kind of balance should be reflected in the rules (which might include nerfing other classes) and that fighter powers shouldn't be flavoured as crazy stunts or the like.

It's no fun when you agree with me and make me look stupid by saying what I've been saying more succinctly on top.

Quote from: The ButcherFrank... do you feel the game would be actually improved by making Fighters and Wizards "balanced"? Not the game as a mathematical construct, but the game as, you know, something you do with some friends, for fun. Honest question, no snark here; our playstyles are obviously different and I'd like to better understand yours.

Yes, I unreservedly do. At low level play, where most actual gaming happens, the 3e Fighter and the 3e Wizard are able to play the same game. The Wizard is able to drop several enemies in one shot with a color spray, but he's really fragile and he can only shoot a color spray a couple of times. The Fighter has more hit points, a better armor class, and his sword blows are perfectly capable of dropping orcs and goblins. The enemies are all on foot and the battlefields are cramped underground monster hotels, so being the toughest guy and standing in the doorway provides considerable benefit to the party all by itself.

Even mid levels are different. But high levels are really different. For starters, the 3e Fighter loses relative offensive capacity unless you pull some fairly crazy optimization shenanigans - at first level the Wizard drops an enemy with a sleep or the Fighter drops an enemy with a sword, at 5th level the Wizard can still totally drop enemies with deep slumber, but the Fighter's sword strikes are not putting down a Troll (63 hp) or an Ettin (65 hp) in a comparable timeframe.

At high levels, even the concept of being a meat shield has lost its luster. First we have the core reality that being in a location and threatening to stab anyone who tries to walk past you means jack and shit when the enemies are flying around roasting city blocks and have plenty of movement to just go around and also don't even need to because their attacks are plenty large enough to simply hit the meat shield and the people behind him at the same time. But even in those circumstances where meat shields would be helpful (such as high level encounters which are merely larger numbers of low level opponents), the harsh truth is that player character meatshields don't really bring anything to the table that isn't brought by summoned, charmed, created, or hired meatshields.

We've all heard about wail of the banshee envy - some Wizard snaps his fingers and kills all seven members of the Legion of Doom in one action before the Fighter even gets a turn and now the player is sad. But that's the kind of thing you can balance easily by giving different characters different places to shine. The real issue is pets. I have never seen a player get more disgusted with the game than the instant they realize that their character is a meat shield but not actually as good at meat shielding as the Druid's bear companion or the Wizard's charmed hill giant or summoned earth elementals or the Cleric's reanimated zombie chimera. The brutal truth at high level is that even in the moments when meat shielding might be something you care about, you can still do it just fine with the leftovers of minion creating spells that the casters used last Thursday.

People talk about how AD&D got around the problem of Fighter inferiority by having them hand out big damage and having the enemies have few hit points. But the real point is that in AD&D when the Wizard got animate dead, the Fighter got a castle and an army. At the point where things started to transition to the point that one character's ability to take up space and stab the fuck out of anyone in arm's reach meant dick-all, the Fighter got to order around squads of archers. The big failure point for the 3e Fighter isn't the massive hit point bloat, it's the fact that Leadership became a general feat that was Charisma based - so the Sorcerer was better than you at even that.

Sure, you could go the 4e route and make it so that you can't summon, reanimate, charm, create, or hire minions. But seriously: fuck that. I'd rather that some of the classes were unplayably horrible than have my entire fantasy neutered so that necromancers can't even make an army of skeletons. When people are throwing the powers of demigods around, the Fighter needs to be in on that action. And I don't mean "The DM took pity on you and gave you an artifact sword that gives you powers that allow you to compete with the Wizard and his charmed Storm Giants", I mean the Fighter needs to actually ramp up to play at that level without DM pity equipment.

-Frank

Quote from: Dimitrios;549496The other issue that I notice is that the folks who complain the most about casters dominating everything seem the most prone to play in the "15 minute adventuring day" style.

Instead of managing their resources to get through a session, casters use all their spells in the first 1 or 2 encounters and then force everyone to stop and rest until they replenish.

It's a lot easier for spell casters to dominate the game when they don't have to manage their spell use effectively.

I never understood why people played the in the "15 minute day" style. It doesn't sound like much fun.

(My first post here. Hi)

Exactly so, and welcome to theRPGSite.

@Frank, exactly, which is why you have to go back to 2e and before.

1. Limits on wizards/clerics/druids
2. Fighters as death machines
3. Domain management

The middle ground is solution 4...

4. The E6/FC or the proposed 5e solution (horizontal instead of vertical growth) at either a hard level like the former or at a soft level like the middle and latter games.

If you don't want to do the above then at level 9 or above all pure martial classes must be FORCED onto a magical path or 4e's bullshit solution.

Or the solution that makes the most sense but never accepted as core Dnd....magic is dangerous, do something like a hundred other games that rock and use fatigue, paradox, variable results, corruption, insanity, preserver/deifiler mechanisms, et al. Hell, just make all spells above 6th level rituals or similar.

That's not the route 5e is taking at all, though. They're going with more power to spellcasters with at-will, CON hit points at start like everybody else and shit, pretty much the 3rd ed fighter but with prepackaged bundles of feats called "themes" instead, and no rules for hirelings and henchmen, which will be an add-on, a side dish, instead.

Quote from: Benoist;549608That's not the route 5e is taking at all, though. They're going with more power to spellcasters with at-will, CON hit points at start like everybody else and shit, pretty much the 3rd ed fighter but with prepackaged bundles of feats called "themes" instead, and no rules for hirelings and henchmen, which will be an add-on, a side dish, instead.

As long as it's an add-on I'm fine with it. I'm far more worried the basic math is bullshit.  I can and will limit stuff to my taste in ANY game I run and will walk out as a player if I decide whatever houserules are in play don't fit my playstyle.  Just give me options and get out of the way.

Did it when I played 2e anytime I was invited to play. It's easy.

I don't like the hp situation at all and said so in my feedback.  At-will magic? We disagree and you know that.  I'm still not comfortable with combat at-will spells though.

Quote from: B.T.;549556Stupid idea with stupid premises.  If the guy whose class name is "fighter" (or "fighting man") isn't good at fighting, then what the fuck good is he?  A fighter can be good at fighting good HP, AC, and damage.

Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon.  He's wrong about what that "something" is, though.  That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks.  The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat.  He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.

Sure, that's one way of doing it, and it's pretty cool; archers are great. But it's not the only way; how about having enough access to non-combat abilities to lure the dragon close, leap onto it, and thoroughly Sword it to death.

There's more to fighting than just being a big man. The fighter survives because he doesn't just know how to fight, he knows when and where to fight.

Quote from: B.T.;549556Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon.  He's wrong about what that "something" is, though.  That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks.  The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat.  He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.

Don't forget that a fighter by higher levels also has Henchmen, who themselves have large groups of Hirelings (soldiers) at their command. That and they have familiarity with all weapons -- including Ballista -- and general knowledge on siege tactics (both offense, defense, and since flying is a rather familiar trope in fantasy, likely aerial tactics as well). Sure a dragon is a horrible opponent, but even a wizard knows that they are safer behind a fort of lots of fighting men willing and trained to shoot dangerous pointy things at high velocity, repeatedly, at it.

Further, the example also assumes a wizard has prepped his/her death dealing spells when some dragon comes in to attack. Well, if a wizard is prepped to the gills with enemy-appropriate death, why wouldn't a fighter likewise be? Further, just as a wizard would prep scrolls in cases of surprise attacks, likewise a fighter would prep defenses and armories similarly. The challenge is to avoid Arena Fighting thinking. This isn't Street Fighter II, this is war D&D style; there's a lot of room for out-of-the-box thinking.

I agree with Frank. Fighters should be getting way better non-magic strategical forces. I out-strategied our fighter at high levels with my clerical hordes of undead. When you got 70 skeletons to waste, they even help vs. Dragons...not starting to talk about an squad of wraiths...our fighter concentrated on "Charging on a Pegasus four quadruplified power attack up the wazooo", but had no stronghold or army of any kind.

Why didn't he have a stronghold or army? Were there no hirelings at least? Which version of D&D was it?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.

-Frank

Unless you limit monster ranges closer to PC arrow ranges, allow the wizard to cast flight on the fighter, allow insane jumping and wrestling the dragon to the ground (and/or using it as a mount, as Sett said), or fight in places with ceilings (like dungeons) or zero-g and flight (like many planar adventures).

Range plus flight is only the win button if the range is unreachable from the ground.

Area somewhat neutralizes meat shielding, but that happens a lot earlier. If it was genuinely a problem I think I'd have noticed it. Thing is, meat shielding isn't all a fighter does. He's also supposed to be an efficient killer.

Quote from: Marleycat;549606@Frank, exactly, which is why you have to go back to 2e and before.

1. Limits on wizards/clerics/druids
2. Fighters as death machines
3. Domain management

The middle ground is solution 4...

4. The E6/FC or the proposed 5e solution (horizontal instead of vertical growth) at either a hard level like the former or at a soft level like the middle and latter games.

If you don't want to do the above then at level 9 or above all pure martial classes must be FORCED onto a magical path or 4e's bullshit solution.

Or the solution that makes the most sense but never accepted as core Dnd....magic is dangerous, do something like a hundred other games that rock and use fatigue, paradox, variable results, corruption, insanity, preserver/deifiler mechanisms, et al. Hell, just make all spells above 6th level rituals or similar.

The idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking. Try naming two high powered original campaigns fighter characters other than Robilar. Now try naming four high powered original campaigns magic user characters other than Mordenkainen. The fact that the latter is much easier than the former shows how skewed the playing field was at the high end better than any mathhammer demonstration.

But in any case, the 5e plan is just the 4e plan, on steroids.

Quote from: mearlsThe orc warband that can threaten an 8th-level party is still too few in number to sack a town. A great wyrm can attack the town and destroy it, but it still risks death if the town guard can turn catapults, ballistae, and massed crossbow fire against it. We can avoid a world where a mundane army simply has no chance of even harming, let alone defeating, powerful monsters.

The Great Wyrm, top of the power pyramid of dragons, is apparently supposed to risk death when fighting "a town". So um... yeah. If you take all the epicness out of everything so that even the most powerful dragons can get arrested by the cops, then any questions of Fighter/Wizard balance are easily answered. Fighters and Wizards are already pretty balanced at first level in most editions, so if you're committing yourself to always fighting low level bullshit at every level, it seems pretty easy to make things stay "balanced".

Not a game I want to play. I want to raise armies of the dead and rain fire from the skies. I do not want to be told that there is an entire wagon of city guardsmen on their way, so both heroes and monsters have to scatter like rival gangs fighting over meth turf. If 4e taught us anything at all, it is that if you paint up a bath salt popping face eater as an "Epic Vampire Lord" or some shit, it's still just as anticlimactic to take him down as it is to shoot an unpainted face eater off an overwhelmed hobo.

If it can't do high level things, it's not high level. And if it can't reliably burn down a fucking town, it's not doing high level things. Nerfing everything down to the level of "kind of strong dudes" is a way to achieve balance of a sort, but far too high a price to pay in my opinion.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;549634The idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking. Try naming two high powered original campaigns fighter characters other than Robilar. Now try naming four high powered original campaigns magic user characters other than Mordenkainen. The fact that the latter is much easier than the former shows how skewed the playing field was at the high end better than any mathhammer demonstration.
 
But in any case, the 5e plan is just the 4e plan, on steroids.
 
 
 
The Great Wyrm, top of the power pyramid of dragons, is apparently supposed to risk death when fighting "a town". So um... yeah. If you take all the epicness out of everything so that even the most powerful dragons can get arrested by the cops, then any questions of Fighter/Wizard balance are easily answered. Fighters and Wizards are already pretty balanced at first level in most editions, so if you're committing yourself to always fighting low level bullshit at every level, it seems pretty easy to make things stay "balanced".
 
Not a game I want to play. I want to raise armies of the dead and rain fire from the skies. I do not want to be told that there is an entire wagon of city guardsmen on their way, so both heroes and monsters have to scatter like rival gangs fighting over meth turf. If 4e taught us anything at all, it is that if you paint up a bath salt popping face eater as an "Epic Vampire Lord" or some shit, it's still just as anticlimactic to take him down as it is to shoot an unpainted face eater off an overwhelmed hobo.
 
If it can't do high level things, it's not high level. And if it can't reliably burn down a fucking town, it's not doing high level things. Nerfing everything down to the level of "kind of strong dudes" is a way to achieve balance of a sort, but far too high a price to pay in my opinion.
 
-Frank

That is what I am saying the older editions AREN'T caster centric. Fighters were feared motherfuckers. So choice A is to go back to that. Either that or drop the pretense and make fighters wuxia and more and have free reign, no limitation wizards.

The more I read these "pity the poor fighter" threads, the more I'm starting to think that a lot of folks just plain don't think that fighters doing the stuff that fighters do (using weapons to beat the crap out of things) is cool. Or even can be cool, no matter how good they are at it.

If that's the case, I'm not sure there's any fix for it. One of my longest running 1e/2e characters was a straight human fighter and I had blast. Never felt "deprotagonized" or whatever.

Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the "casters dominated in all editions not just 3.5" claim. Maybe at high levels if by high you mean 20+, but who played at those levels back in the day?

Over on rpg.net, I saw someone claim that in 1e wizards completely dominated the game "from 5th level on". One 3rd level spell per day lets you dominate the game? Color me puzzled.